Employment contract in English law

The two main features of a contract is that work is exchanged for a wage, and that one party stands in a relationship of relative dependence, or inequality of bargaining power.

A worker is entitled to a minimum wage, holidays, to join a trade union, all anti-discrimination laws, and health and safety protection.

Multiple factors, including how much one could be said to be integrated into the business,[6] or whether one metaphorically wore the 'badge' of the organisation, were looked at, with a focus, it was said on 'economic reality' and form over substance.

[9] This led to cases where employers, typically of people on low wages and little legal understanding, pleaded that they had only hired a person on a casual basis and thus should not be entitled to the major job security rights.

[10] Employee Worker Once a person's work contract is categorised, the courts have specific rules for determining, beyond the statutory minimum charter of rights, what are its terms and conditions.

When, 3 months and 2 days after arrival, she lodged an unfair dismissal claim, the employer argued it was time barred on the ground that in ordinary contract law one is bound by a notice when a reasonable person would have read a message.

This is a flexible concept that is applied in a broad variety of circumstances leading to remedies in damages or an injunction, such as to require employers do not act in an authoritarian manner,[24] call employees names behind their back,[25] treat workers unequally when upgrading pay,[26] run the company as a front for international crime,[27] or exercise discretion to award a bonus capriciously.

[28] There is tension among judges about the extent to which the core implied term of mutual trust and confidence can be 'contracted out of', with the House of Lords having held that the parties are "free" to do so, while others approach the question as a matter of construction of the agreement which is within exclusive judicial competence to define.

[30] The courts have allowed this to continue, so long as it does not contradict a contract's express terms, which always require an employee's consent,[31] or renegotiation of a collective agreement.

[33] The limits of the courts’ tolerance of such practices are evident if they touch procedures for accessing justice,[34] or potentially if they would contravene the duty of mutual trust and confidence.